It is evident that employees, especially healthcare workers (HCWs), are increasingly seeking more than just financial compensation from their jobs. They also explore the relationship between spirituality and their work, aiming for inspiring and meaningful roles [1, 2]. In recent years, the spirit at work (SAW) concept has gained prominence in management literature [3]. However, a universally accepted definition of SAW is still lacking. Various terms such as spirit at work, spirituality at work, spirit in the workplace, and workplace spirituality are frequently used interchangeably to describe similar dimensions [4].

As indicated by Kinjersky and Skrypnek [5], “spirit (or spirituality) at work and spirituality in the workplace also appears to be used synonymously” (p. 28). Spirit refers to being connected to oneself, others, and the universe, where all things are interconnected and purposeful. Spirituality is the energy that drives individuals towards goals beyond personal gain, representing a continuous search for meaning, a deep appreciation for life, and a personal belief system. The various terms used to refer to SAW pertain to experiences at both the organizational and individual levels. At the organizational level, workplace spirituality refers to a culture driven by mission statements, leadership, and business practices that are socially responsible and value oriented. Such a culture acknowledges employees’ contributions and fosters their personal spiritual growth and wellbeing. As an individual construct, SAW is defined as recognizing that employees possess an inner life enriched by meaningful work within a community setting. This is evident when employees can fully engage their creativity, emotions, and intellect and express various facets of themselves beyond merely performing physical or intellectual tasks [5, 6]. Despite the continued use of multiple terms to describe this phenomenon, in the present study, we use SAW to refer specifically to individual experience, which aligns with Kinjerski and Skrypnek [5].

As highlighted below, the construct’s subjectivity and multidimensionality pose challenges in its definition, which lacks a common consensus: “defining spirituality in the workplace is like capturing an angel – it’s ethereal, and beautiful, but perplexing” [7] (p. 63). Among the various possible definitions, in this study we refer to Kinjerski and Skrypnek [5], who defined SAW as “a distinct state that is characterized by physical, affective, cognitive, interpersonal, spiritual, and mystical dimensions. Most individuals describe the experience as including: a physical sensation characterized by a positive state of arousal or energy; positive affect characterized by a profound feeling of wellbeing and joy; cognitive features involving a sense of being authentic, an awareness of alignment between one’s values and beliefs and one’s work, and a belief that one is engaged in meaningful work that has a higher purpose; an interpersonal dimension characterized by a sense of connection to others and common purpose; a spiritual presence characterized by a sense of connection to something larger than self; and a mystical dimension characterized by a sense of perfection, transcendence, living in the moment, and experiences that were awe-inspiring, mysterious, or sacred” (p. 37).

Many studies have found that SAW performs a mediating role, promoting various outcomes in healthcare. For example, according to Sode and Chenji [8], the promotion of innovative work behavior is facilitated by self-transcendence and spiritual transcendence through the partial mediation of SAW. Lin and colleagues [9] reported that mindfulness promotes perceived job benefits (i.e., personal growth, positive nurse-patient relationships, recognition from family and friends, positive professional perception, and a sense of team belonging) through the mediation of SAW. Dal Corso and colleagues [10] highlighted that positive supervisor behaviors (i.e., integrity, managing emotions, considerate approach) reduce burnout through the partial mediation of SAW. In addition, De Carlo and colleagues [11] found that positive supervisor behaviors had a positive indirect effect on performance through the serial mediation of SAW and work engagement. A recent review [12] found that spirituality often reduces burnout in healthcare, though inconsistencies exist due to varied definitions and measurements. Despite this, a consideration of SAW can benefit healthcare workers’ mental health.

The healthcare sector has experienced significant changes over the years, making the work increasingly demanding. A deep connection with something greater than oneself, the search for meaning, and the sense of purpose and self-transcendence associated with SAW can significantly impact this field. Indeed, SAW in healthcare plays a central role in bridging the gap between technical efficiency and the intrinsic values of care. HCWs distinguish their role from other professions because of their genuine commitment to quality patient care and authentic care behaviors. However, despite this focus, healthcare organizations often face the challenge of balancing the demands of efficient performance with the limitations of available resources. In this context, strategies need to be developed to align technical processes with healthcare’s intangible but crucial elements, such as empathy and compassion. SAW thus fosters a sense of meaning by contributing to people’s health and strengthening community connections. This dimension offers HCWs a deeper sense of purpose by aligning their personal values with organizational goals and enhancing affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors [13, 14]. HCWs are particularly attuned to SAW due to the nature of their work, ethical standards, and social and personal values [15, 16]. The Schwartz Value Theory [17, 18] is the most advanced and widely accepted framework in the literature. It suggests that values are enduring beliefs about desirable end-states or behaviors and serve as guiding principles in a person’s life or social existence. Schwartz identifies ten values grouped into four dimensions: self-transcendence, self-enhancement, openness to change, and conservation. Values can be compatible or in opposition to each other (e.g., benevolence, a self-transcendent value, opposes power, a self-enhancement value). In healthcare, several studies have highlighted how the value considered most important by HCWs and both medical and nursing students is self-transcendence, to the detriment of self-enhancement [19–21]. Furthermore, similar results were also found for informal caregivers [22]. Self-transcendence values focus on the wellbeing of others and altruistic goals, encompassing principles like social justice, equality, and environmental care. These values, including universalism and benevolence, prioritize the welfare of others and discourage selfishness. In contrast, self-enhancement values, such as power and achievement, emphasize personal success, dominance, and material gain, often at the expense of others. Research highlights the theoretical and empirical association between self-transcendence and SAW, as individuals who experience self-transcendence usually seek meaning and prioritize relationships, ethics, and service to others within their work environment [8, 23–26]. Thus, a positive association between self-transcendence and SAW can be assumed. As self-enhancement is the opposite of self-transcendence, a positive association with SAW is not expected.

As previously outlined, SAW is often associated with job satisfaction [3], even in healthcare [27]. In addition to job satisfaction, compassion satisfaction is paramount in healthcare [28–31], defined as the pleasure one receives from helping others and feelings of positively contributing to the work setting, colleagues, and society [32]. SAW – specifically meaningful work and a sense of community – seems to promote HCWs’ compassion satisfaction, thus improving their professional quality of life [33]. A positive association between SAW and compassion satisfaction can therefore be assumed in line with the literature.

However, working in healthcare is a double-edged sword that can potentially positively and negatively impact an individual’s life and health. HCWs often exhibit high concern with their job, which can lead to workaholism [34–36]. Workaholism is characterized by an incessant need to work, which can adversely affect physical, mental, psychological, and social health. In the literature, many definitions of workaholism have been proposed. Spence and Robbins [37], for example, define the phenomenon as “a set of attitudes classified into three components: work involvement (limits between work and personal life), drive (internal motivation), and enjoyment of work (satisfaction obtained with work)” (p. 2). In their three identified dimensions, the authors distinguish positive and negative aspects of workaholism. The combination of these different levels within these dimensions gives rise to specific profiles of workaholics with varying degrees of functionality, ranging from those who are involved in and enjoy their work (e.g., work enthusiasts) to those who are addicted to it (e.g., work addicts). Another widely used definition in the literature is by Schaufeli and colleagues [38], who define workaholism as a tendency to work excessively and compulsively. The authors subsequently identify two dimensions: working excessively and working compulsively. Contrary to Spence and Robbins, the authors conceptualize workaholism as a negative construct, excluding pleasure and involvement in working. Once again, the possibility exists to identify specific workaholic profiles by combining the scores of the two dimensions (e.g., compulsive worker, hard worker). In the present study, we align with Schaufeli and colleagues’ definition, as it is more widely utilized by researchers who characterize workaholism as a behavioral pattern rather than an authentic work addiction [39]. Few studies have explored the relationship between SAW and workaholism, and the results are sometimes ambiguous. Although SAW is often linked to wellbeing, its relationship with workaholism is not always negative. In some instances, it tends to be positively associated with workaholism [40]. Mónico and Margaça [41] observe that SAW dimensions increase the components of workaholism in different ways.

Although it is an essentially subjective experience, the literature suggests the critical role of SAW in fostering individual and organizational wellbeing and preventing work-related stress, tangibly and concretely, as expressed by the fox’s phrase “What is essential is invisible to the eyes,” in Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s renowned work, The Little Prince, which provides the title of the present paper.

The inherent complexity of SAW makes its definition and measurement a challenging task. This challenge arises from the researchers’ endeavor to objectify an inherently subjective experience, the multidimensionality of the construct, and the overlaps created with the concept of religiosity [42]. A recent review [43] identified 18 scales for measuring workplace spirituality with individual and organizational focus, comprising vertical (i.e., connection to the transcendent, including a higher power or sacred) and horizontal aspects of spirituality (i.e., manifestation of spirituality in one’s functioning and experiences in the workplace). The Spirit at Work Scale (SAWS) by Kinjerski and Skrypnek [44, 45] focuses on individual experiences, and its dimensions include both horizontal and vertical aspects, as follows. The main reasons for using the SAWS are both its capacity to distinguish between spirituality and religiosity without referring to God, enabling individuals to ascribe their meaning to “something greater,” and to describe the individual’s experience of spirit at work clearly.

In line with the definition of SAW above, Kinjerski and Skrypnek [44, 45] developed the SAWS, which consists of 18 items grouped into four dimensions: engaging work (i.e., profound feelings of wellbeing, a belief that one is engaged in meaningful work that has a higher purpose, and an awareness of alignment between one’s values and beliefs); mystical experience (i.e., a positive state of energy or vitality, a sense of perfection, transcendence, and experiences of joy and bliss); spiritual connection (i.e., a sense of connection to something larger than self); and sense of community (i.e., feelings of connectedness to others and common purpose). Although the eigenvalue of the sense of community did not reach the conventional threshold (eigenvalue = 0.93), the authors retained it because the scree plot suggested four factors [45]. In general, SAWS shows good psychometric properties regarding reliability and test-retest reliability. SAWS also shows good convergent and discriminant validity, with positive correlations with some SAW aspects (e.g., gratitude) and work-related measures (e.g., organizational commitment) and weaker correlations with personality dimensions (e.g., conscientiousness). The author also observes negative correlations between SAW and symptoms of burnout and depression [45]. A primary merit of SAWS is its detachment from the religious dimension, often mistakenly associated with SAW. This makes it particularly suitable to be studied in organizational contexts.

Several authors have adapted the SAWS to their respective cultural contexts in the last decade. Results have frequently suggested a decrease in the number of items and factors. Specifically, Kırklıkçı [46] maintained an 18-item scale divided into three factors, while Tevichapong [47] reduced the scale from 18 to 12 items, divided into three factors. Moll [48] implemented a single-factor scale with five items. Dal Corso and colleagues [10, 11] adopted the scale for the Italian context. Results suggested maintaining the 18 items grouped in the four original factors. These findings suggest that maintaining SAWS’s original factorial structure in different cultural contexts is challenging. Currently, there is still interest in measuring SAW and workplace spirituality appropriately [43].

This paper aims to present the short Italian version of the SAWS, assessing its factorial structure, reliability, construct validity (i.e., convergent and divergent validity), and criterion validity (i.e., concurrent validity). Specifically, we aim to develop a shortened version of SAWS to make it more efficient, reduce administration time, and allow the investigation of more constructs with fewer items, ensuring the measure remains valid, reliable, concise, and free of redundancy. We carried out two studies. The first focused on evaluating the scale’s reliability and structure through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In the second study, we aimed to confirm the stability of the factorial structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and to assess convergent, divergent, and concurrent validity by examining the correlations between the SAW’s dimensions and various theoretically relevant constructs (i.e., self-transcendence, self-enhancement, compassion satisfaction, and workaholism). Additionally, we explored the role of SAW and its dimensions as a mediating variable in the relationship between the personal values of self-transcendence and self-enhancement and both compassion satisfaction and workaholism.

The KMO value was 0.82, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant – χ² (153) = 1,366.28, p < 0.001. The data were ideal for factor analysis. There were three eigenvalues over 1 (5.03, 1.46, 1.06). The scree plot examination confirmed the selection of three factors (see Supplementary Material S1). Table 1 shows factor loadings of 18 items of I-SAWS after rotation. We retained the nine items with factor loadings over 0.60 (i.e., Item 11, Item 15, Item 10, Item 7, Item 5, Item 8, Item 17, Item 3, Item 18).

The nine items initially grouped under the engaging work dimension were distributed into the other three factors (i.e., spiritual connection, mystical experience, and sense of community), respectively. Factor 1, resulting from combining the original factors of engaging work and spiritual connection and named higher mission, is defined as a sense of connection to something greater than oneself, which inspires and guides the individual in their work. It also refers to the perception of having a mission in life, a greater purpose, which the work helps to pursue. Higher mission explained 18% of the variance and comprises Item 11, Item 15, and Item 10. Factor 2, named optimal functioning, resulted from combining engaging work and mystical experience, explained 16% of the variance and comprises Item 7, Item 5, and Item 8. This dimension is characterized by a positive state of energy or vitality, experiences of joy and bliss, and a strong passion for one’s work. Finally, combining the engaging work and sense of community dimensions led to Factor 3, named joint meaning. It explained 12% of the variance and comprises Item 17, Item 3, and Item 18. Joint meaning is characterized by feelings of connectedness and trust with colleagues, a sense of belonging to a community, and the perception of being in just the right place.

Table 2 shows fit indexes for tested models. The one-factor model showed a bad fit to the data – χ² (27) = 200.35, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.64; NNFI = 0.52; RMSEA = 0.18; SRMR = 0.15. In contrast, both the three-factor model and the second-order model with three first-order factors showed a good fit to the data – χ² (24) = 33.28, p > 0.05; CFI = 0.98; NNFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.05. According to the Δχ² test (Δχ² (3) = 167.06, p < 0.001), results indicated a structure with three factors. In addition, the three first-order factors loaded strongly onto the higher-order factor in the second-order model (Figure 1).

All the standardized coefficients were significant at the 0.05 level. Furthermore, CR and AVE reach satisfying values for all factors (i.e., higher mission – CR = 0.84, AVE = 0.64; optimal functioning – CR = 0.75, AVE = 0.51; joint meaning – CR = 0.71, AVE = 0.50). Therefore, we considered the measurement model validity appropriate.

Table 3 shows the psychometric properties of each variable in the mediation model. The skewness and kurtosis coefficients ranged from −1 to 1. We verified the internal reliability of each scale by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which showed a high degree of internal reliability for all scales. Moreover, Table 3 presents the correlations among the measured psychological dimensions. Convergent, divergent, and concurrent validity were examined through bivariate correlations. The positive and significant correlations between the three dimensions of SAW and self-transcendence indicate appropriate convergent validity. Only joint meaning showed a low correlation with self-enhancement (r = 0.15; p < 0.05), indicating appropriate divergent validity; the significant correlations between the three dimensions of SAW and compassion satisfaction, and the correlation between the dimension optimal functioning of SAW and workaholism, indicate appropriate concurrent validity.

Finally, a path analysis model was estimated to test the hypothesized relationships between self-transcendence, self-enhancement, the three dimensions of SAW, compassion satisfaction, and workaholism. After controlling for the participation in training courses on the humanization of assistance, self-enhancement was associated only with compassion satisfaction (β = 0.15, p < 0.05) and workaholism (β = 0.17, p < 0.05), while the relationships with the dimensions of SAW were not significant. We excluded self-enhancement from the model to explore the role of SAW dimensions as mediators and achieve a more parsimonious solution. In this second model (Figure 2), self-transcendence was positively associated with higher mission (β = 0.32, p < 0.001), optimal functioning (β = 0.23, p < 0.01), and joint meaning (β = 0.20, p < 0.01). Furthermore, self-transcendence was positively associated with compassion satisfaction (β = 0.19, p < 0.01) and workaholism (β = 0.20, p < 0.01), controlling for the effect of the three SAW dimensions. Moreover, higher mission and optimal functioning were positively associated with compassion satisfaction (β = 0.15, p < 0.05; β = 0.37, p < 0.001), whereas joint meaning was not. Interestingly, optimal functioning was positively associated with workaholism (β = 0.25, p < 0.01), but joint meaning was negatively associated with it (β = −0.19, p < 0.01), whereas higher mission was not.

We further verify the mediating role of the three dimensions of SAW between self-transcendence and both outcomes (i.e., compassion satisfaction, workaholism). When Bootstrap = 5,000, the indirect effect of self-transcendence on compassion satisfaction through higher mission (95% CI = 0.002, 0.102) and optimal functioning (95% CI = 0.027, 0.154) was significant. Moreover, the indirect effect of self-transcendence on workaholism through optimal functioning (95% CI = 0.012, 0.115) and joint meaning (95% CI = −0.089, −0.004) was significant. The 95% CI for the indirect effect of self-transcendence on compassion satisfaction through joint meaning and on workaholism through higher mission contained zero, indicating both indirect effects are nonsignificant (Table 4).